Not my fault

Blog entries on this site over the next few days will be irregular and possibly sporadic.  But it's not my fault (my wife might disagree).  Blame the stork instead.

Reading Material for 2009

An Australian professor of geology, Ian Plimer, gave a speech this week titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot of Hot Air.  Plimer's contention is that "climates always change . . . climates have always changed and they always will."  (The speech is discussed in this column by Miranda Devine in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald.)

According to Dr. Plimer, this change results from planetary wobbles, the varying distance between the sun and the earth, variations in solar radiation, etc., not from greenhouse gasses produced human society.

Plimer showed that the earth's climate has always been fluctuating for at least 110,000 years, when the "Pleistocene Ice Age" began.  This period ended with the 800-year-long "Bolling warm period" about 14,700 years ago, which preceded the "Older Dryas cooling," which was followed by the "Allerod warming," and then "the Little Ice Age" from 1300 a.d. to 1850.  Since then, the earth has experienced "one of the most stable climate periods in history."

In addition, Dr. Plimer has completely debunked the idea that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in global warming by simply charting CO2 levels and temperature.  The chart shows "little correlation" and "demonstrates one of the 'lessons from history' to which geologists are privy:  'There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

Apparently the global warming nuts aren't privy to geologists.

Dr. Plimer has a new book coming out in 2009, Heaven and Earth:  The Missing Science of Global Warming.

Is there any chance that we can get Al Gore to add it to his summer reading list?

Bringing the troops home . . . by 2011

I believe that President Bush was correct in refusing to set a timetable or specific deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq.  Spelling out how long one side is willing to fight creates an incentive for the opposing side to hunker down in a defensive mode and wait for the withdrawal before stepping into the power vacuum.

On the other hand, I believe that I have long believed that if the Iraqis no longer want American troops on the ground, we shouldn't be there.  If they don't want or need our help anymore then we shouldn't be spending our money or placing our heroes' lives on the line.

Now the Iraqi Parliament, with broad-based support from Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, has approved a security agreement that specifically authorizes the presence and action of U.S. forces within their country's sovereign borders.  But it also sets out a timetable "requiring American troops to withdraw from cities and towns by June 30, 2009, and for all troops to leave the country by the end of 2011."  (Link to New York Times story here.)

That's good enough for me.  If Iraq no longer wants or needs the help of the American military, no problem.  Best wishes.  Good luck.

Let's just all hope and pray that when American troops do finally leave, they never have to go back.

Happy Thanksgiving . . . and please remember who to thank for your blessings this year.

American culture has done a "great" job of secularizing Christian holidays.  Christmas often seems more about Santa and his elves than the birth of Jesus Christ.  Easter's celebrations of the resurrection have been replaced by bonnets and bunnies.

But the secular attack on Thanksgiving has been more subtle.  This year I began to notice that most of the references to the holiday on television acknowledged the need to be thankful or even to give thanks for blessings received.  

But each reference was incomplete . . .  

If we are to "be thankful" . . . who are we supposed to thank?

If we are to "give thanks" . . . to whom do we give our thanks?

If we "received blessings" . . . who blessed us?

None of these questions are answered in public in American culture.  Keep an eye on public officials tomorrow or on news anchors or your politically correct friends.  God won't receive a mention.

And that's a shame.  After all, the holiday of Thanksgiving is a date set aside to give thanks to God and recognize the blessings that God, yes, GOD, has bestowed upon us all.

George Washington proclaimed the first Thanksgiving.  After a joint committee of both Houses of Congress recommended the holiday, Washington recognized that it was "the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor" and set aside November 26, 1789, to be a day "devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks."

Though the P.C. crowd won't mention God tomorrow, try not to forget Him.

Christmas decorations banned at Florida University

The battle between political correctness and free exercise of religion - particularly Christianity - has waged in the United States for years now.  And, unfortunately, political correctness has been winning many of the public battles lately.  

P.C. won its latest victory today at Florida Gulf Coast University, where the school's administration has banned Christmas decorations from all public places, including even private office doors.  (Link to story here.)

Enough of this madness.  No one has the right to be free from being irrationally offended.  And, I'm sorry, if a Christmas tree, Santa, a nativity, a wreath, or a menorah for that matter, offends you - you're irrational.

On the other hand, every American has a constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religion.  The First Amendment clearly and concisely reads:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

Since the religion clauses have been applied to the states and state institutions (like universities) through the Fourteenth Amendment, aren't these administrators violating the constitution by prohibiting individuals from decking the halls?  Where's the ACLU when you need it?

Support for a socialist president eroding in America - South America that is

Parties opposing Venezuela's Socialist President Hugo Chavez gained ground in elections held over the weekend.

U.S. government pledges $7.76 TRILLION DOLLARS for financial bailout

$700 billion wasn't enough . . . not even close.  According to this Bloomberg report, "the U.S. government [the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Treasury Department] is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion . . . to rescue the financial system after credit markets seized up 15 months ago."

The numbers that we're talking about are too big for individuals, even individuals like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to conceptualize.  But think of it this way, "the money pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.  It's nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This is staggering.  Absolutely staggering.

The government doesn't have the money (not even with all the tax increases or growth you can imagine) yet it is jumping into management/manipulation of the economy headfirst.

The madness must stop.  And it will - one way or the other:  the government must stand aside and allow the free market to operate or face its own, inevitable, bankruptcy.

One nation under God

Every Sunday morning millions of Americans attend worship services.  This is, after all, a nation under God.  Our President-elect, however, has not recently been among the millions in church.  Barack Obama has not attended a single worship service since before the election.

Could it be that he's too busy?  Well, first of all, how can a human being created by God be too busy to devote time to worship the creator?  Second, Presidents Bush and Clinton each found the time to go to church on the Sundays after they were elected, why can't Obama?  And third, he's got the time, he's just chosen to use it to play basketball.

Priorities?

The election is OVER . . . remove your bumper stickers, please!

Elisa Crouch and Ken Leiser at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch hit the nail on the head today writing that "with the election in the rear-view mirror, it's time to do something about those bumper stickers.  . . . It's time to move on."

Hear hear!

Why on earth would anybody want to continue to campaign for a candidate when the election is finished?  The winners don't need your help and the losers can't use your support.

If you've still got an Obama sticker . . . why?  Are you just gloating?  Do you think that it makes you cool?  You supported the winner . . . yippee!  So did, unfortunately, lots of other people.  But most of them are smart enough to realize that your guy's performance in office over the next four years will have significantly more influence on the 2012 election than a sticker on the back of their Prius.  

And if you've still got a McCain sticker . . . why?  Are you so in need of attention that you seek out the amused looks, jeers, and taunts of Democrats buoyed by their candidate kicking your man's you-know-what?  Maybe you just don't want to be blamed for all the bad things that you think will happen when Obama takes office.  Well, guess what, nobody's going to blame you.  Nobody cares about who you voted for.  And why you'd want to continue to tout your support for the RINO who took the GOP down to defeat is beyond me.  It wouldn't surprise me if you still had a Rams jersey on your Christmas list.

And if you're still driving around with a bumper sticker from 2004 or before, you're in serious need of professional help.

The time has come.  Shed the campaign stickers America.

Has the media figured out that global warming is a crock?

Maybe . . . NBC, which owns The Weather Channel, fired the entire staff of the cable network's environmental program, "Forecast Earth," which "was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change."  (Link to story here.)

But probably not . . . the more likely cause is economic.  Even so, we should take that as a positive sign.  If a global warming scare show is not profitable, that's a good sign that large numbers of folks are not tuning in.  And if folks aren't tuning in, there's a good chance they're not buying into the climate change agenda.

Obama's spending plan quadrupling before inauguration day?

During the campaign, Barack Obama proposed a second economic stimulus package with a price tag of $175 billion.  But on television this morning, Obama's senior economic advisor "confirmed the plan would be significantly bigger."  (Link to Financial Times story here.)

How much bigger, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gleefully "predicted it could be as much as $500 billion-$700 billion."  That's FOUR times more than Obama proposed during the campaign.

He's not even in office yet and Obama's already quadrupling his plans to spend our money on his new-New Deal.

George W. Bush set the record for outrageous government spending (with lots of help from Congress) but it looks like that record is about to be shattered.

Al Gore's latest pet theory

The global warming crowd's King Nut, Al Gore, has now taken up a new theory - suggested in a book by Jared Diamond - that "the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters" including "global climatic shifts."

Interesting.  Makes me wonder about all the fossil fuels the Mayans burned.  What must their carbon footprint have been?  And all those Mayan automobiles and coal-fired power plants.  The pollution must have been incredible - to cause climate change.  After all, aren't those the things that Gore and his pals have been telling us are causing climate change now and probably the end of our civilization?

Don't you think that a "smart" guy - a Nobel Prize winner even - would have sense enough to realize that if a pre-industrial civilization experienced climate change that that fact, if true, would cut against the current theory/belief that modern humans' carbon emissions are the cause of the "problem"?

Will this be that crisis that Joe Biden was talking about?

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities, has reported that Iran has 1,390 pounds of low-enriched uranium - enough that, if purified, is enough to make an atomic bomb.  (Link to story here.)

If this is the precursor to the crisis Joe Biden predicted?

If so, let's all hope - and pray - that President Obama will have the ability to handle it.

Mitt Romney Gets it

With this Op-Ed in yesterday's New York Times, Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts and Republican candidate for president, showed that he gets it.

Romney, native of Detroit and son of an auto executive, makes the case that "a managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the [auto] industry needs."  It is likely the only way that excess costs can be shed to make American vehicles competitive.

If the Big Three "get the bailout," Romney says, "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.  It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

On the other hand, "without the bailout, Detroit will need to radically restructure itself.  . . . Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."

You got that right Mitt!

While Romney may have been fared no better than Barack Obama in November's election, wouldn't it have been nice to see a conservative try?

Conversion of an Abortionist

Stojan Adasevic was a "champion of abortion."  The Serbian doctor performed approximately 48,000 abortions over 26 years, sometimes 35 in a single day.

But no more.  Thank God.

I heard about this story on the radio today (make that yesterday) and went googling for it tonight.  The story originally appeared in La Razon, a Spanish daily newspaper.  I didn't find the original story (since I don't speak Spanish it wouldn't have done much good if I had found it) but I did find a story about the story from the Catholic News Agency.  

To read the full CNA story, click here.  It is excerpted below, and quotes La Razon:

Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive [in Serbia] until the 80s, but they did not change [Adasevic's] opinion.  Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.

In describing his conversion, Adasevic "dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear.  A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence.  The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat.  One night he asked the man in black and white who he was.  'My name is Thomas Aquinas,' the man in his dream responded.  Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint.  He didn't recognize the name."

"Why don't you ask me who these children are?"  St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

"They are the little ones you killed with your abortions," St. Thomas told him.

"Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.

"That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion--something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet block.  The doctor agreed.  Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass.  However, the baby's heart came out still beating.  Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being."

. . .

Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

Watch this video. Please.

Occasionally, my wife watches The Oprah Winfrey Show.  Today, she had a segment queued up for me to watch.  I know, I know, tell all the jokes you want . . . but I'm exceedingly glad that she had me watch the clip.  My only complaint was that she allowed me to watch it when the box of tissues in the living room was empty.  I had to go to the bathroom down the hall to dry my eyes.

The Oprah segment was actually showing a video from youtube about the extraordinary life of a very special child.

Click here to watch that youtube video yourself.

Every child is a gift from God.

Every baby has a reason for being.

Every life is worth protecting.

At least the right candidate won one election this year!

Congratulations to Albert Pujols on winning his second Most Valuable Player award!

(Link to St. Louis Post-Dispatch story here.)

Madam Secretary?

Global warming data wrong again!

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies previously announced that October 2008 was the hottest October on record.  Great news for the global warming crowd, eh?  Too bad it wasn't true.

As reported in the London Telegraph, the GISS used September's temperature records instead of October's for a large chunk of Russia.  

This huge error calls into question all of GISS's numbers because in explaining their "mistake" the group's spokesman claimed that it happened because GISS got the Russian temperature figures from an outside source and "did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with."

This is a big deal because GISS is one of four sources relied upon by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for global temperature data and, "the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."

The devil is in the details, but details don't seem to matter to the environmentalist nuts.  As long as the data supports their conclusions, who cares if it is accurate.

Wouldn't you think that illegal immigrants who admit that they are in the United States Illegally would be deported rather than being released?

Well, you would be wrong.  Check out this alarming feature from today's Houston Chronicle.

The sheriff of Harris County, where Houston sits, Tommy Thomas, explained that, "in a perfect world, I'd like to see our borders secured to where we have someone we find to be here illegally, we turn them over to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and have them deported.  But that's not something that's happening at this day and time."

It sure ought to be happening at this day and time.  It doesn't seem too much to ask that if someone's here illegally and gets caught they should be on a fast plane or slow boat home - as soon as possible.

Jim Inhofe gets it too

Like his colleague Jim DeMint, Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe gets it.  He's asking Congress to pull the plug on the $700 billion financial bailout and save whatever is left of it.  

Inhofe has called out Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for selling us all a bill of goods.  Paulson, Inhofe now sees, got "blank check" bailout authority from Congress on the premise that the government would be buying up high risk assets from troubled fragile banks and other institutions, "then he didn't do it.  . . . That's enough reason right there" to revoke Paulson's authority.

Well said Senator.  But if that wasn't blunt enough, Inhofe plainly and simply accused Paulson of lying to Congress.  Whenever people come to Congress and advised that something "has to be done and has to be done immediately, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of ten they are not telling the truth.  And this is one of those nine times."

Inhofe also opposes bailing out the "Big Three" Detroit automakers.  "If we keep on nursing a broken system," he said, "then we cant expect to have a different result come later on.  . . . I think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here."

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have the chance to use their positions to rebuild a conservative and principled party.  Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe seem ready to lead.

Jim DeMint gets it

Jim DeMint, Republican Senator from South Carolina, has a pretty good handle on why his party lost big in 2008 elections . . . George W. Bush, Ted Stevens, and John McCain.

Bush and Stevens led the way for expansion of government and wasteful spending.

McCain betrayed conservative principles by sponsoring a flawed campaign finance reform package, proposing "amnesty for illegals,"  supporting a cap-and-trade program to fight "global warming," opposing oil drilling in ANWR, and backing the $700 billion bailout.

"Americans do prefer a traditional conservative government," DeMint said.  "They just did not believe Republicans were going to give it to them."

You're absolutely right Senator DeMint.  Right on the money!

Help Wanted

Dallas (Texas) Independent School District seeks teachers for bilingual classes.  Legal presence in the United States not required.  Social security number not required (fake # will be provided by the District).

Where do I get my money?

First, the banks got the federal government to bail them out.  Next, the automakers got in line for their handout.  Now, the cities are getting in line.  The mayors of Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix have asked Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for a cut of the $700 billion bailout package to help ease them through the current financial crisis.

The economy is affecting all of us, of course, SLC included.  So where do I get in line for my share of the dough?

Palin no longer has McCain holding her back

Sarah Palin is no longer John McCain's running mate.  Instead she is the charismatic, conservative governor of Alaska, and a frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.  And, she is no longer constrained by McCain's "moderate" policies and talking points. 

Today Palin spoke out at the Republican Governors Association convention in Miami.  She spoke out against "additional taxpayer bailouts" for companies, corporations, and "perhaps even states now who may be standing in line with their hands out."  She called for more economic "accountability and personal responsibility" suggesting "conservative solutions to these economic challenges."

The "real" Sarah Palin - the one not watered down by her association with a "moderate" presidential candidate - is ready to shine.

(Link to CNN story here.)

Automaker bailout in doubt . . . Democrats "blame" Republicans

It seems as though Congress might finally have realized that they can't print enough money or confiscate enough from us to bail out every business in America.  (Link to Reuters story here.)

This is good news.  A realization that may have come $700 billion too late.  But better late than never.

But who is Senate MAJORITY Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) criticizing for the "failure" to bail out Detroit?  The MINORITY Republicans, of course.  According to Reid, isn't everything the Republicans fault?  Quoting Reuters, Reid "cautioned that success of the bailout rests with Senate Republicans and the White House."  These Republicans must be the most powerful minority in history.

Blocking another blundering bailout is not "failure" but success of rational capitalism and market economics.

And when your party has a majority, blaming the opposition for not allowing you to pass legislation is just silly.

Who will the Democrats have to blame for their failures with expanded majorities next year and Barack Obama in the White House?

$700 Billion Bait-and-Switch

Remember the $700 billion bailout of the banking industry?  The one that authorized the U.S. Government to purchase "troubled assets" from the banks and other financial institutions?  The one that was pushed by George W. Bush and that John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all voted for?

Don't worry about it if you don't remember it, because the Treasury Department isn't using the money to buy "troubled assets" after all.  Instead it is buying bank stock with the $700 billion that was, apparently, authorized with no strings attached and no oversight.

Dan Arnall at ABC is calling this "change in plans" a "quick pivot" and asks if "this is the biggest bait and switch in American history?"

It sure smells like it.

A big thanks to the majority of our representatives in Washington, D.C., for the stench.

Washington University is out-of-place in the Midwest

According to a story in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington University in St. Louis will ban sales of bottled water on campus beginning this fall.  This latest plan to save the planet is the brainchild of Matt Malten, the university's assistant vice chancellor for (get this) "sustainability."

Yep, since, according to Malten, "it costs society a lot more in energy and expense to bottle water than to have students head for the nearest hallway drinking fountain" Wash. U. students will no longer have the choice.  

What about students who don't want to drink out of the nasty public fountain?  They're left to carry water from home or buy a soft drink, which, of course, is also bottled "planet-killing" containers.  How ridiculous.

Liberalism reigns on college campuses nationwide - and has for decades - but this sort of idiocy seems like something that should be coming from the Northeast.  Washington University really should be in Massachusetts.

Democrats should read this blog

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama should read this blog before bailing out General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.

The only thing that has changed since October 30 is the price tag . . . 

Apologies to my readers

I just re-read my last two entries and realized that they're a couple of the worst things I've ever written.  Each one is simply a long ramble with not much to say.  I can't stand most op-ed pieces because they drone on and on to make a point that could have been made in a sentence and here I am doing the same thing.

The last two entries could have been written in just a few sentences . . .

Obama won the election and will be our president.  We don't know what he's going to do in office so it is best to simply wait and see rather than wasting our time fretting about our worst assumptions coming true.  If Obama does something good - support him.  If he does something bad - oppose him.

It takes real political insight to some up with something that basic.  [Sarcasm intended.]

My apologies.  I promise to do my best not to subject you to such amateurish writing in the future.

But be vigilant!

Yesterday I suggested that conservatives and, indeed, all Americans give our next president a chance and the benefit of the doubt.  I haven't changed my mind.  As Americans we owe that much to our elected officials.

But none of them should be given a blank check or unlimited power.  And none of them should be allowed to take either.  Preventing politicians of any stripe from overstepping their bounds requires a watchful eye.

A couple of items in the news deserve watching . . . 

First, Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, told Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press Sunday that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to RULE on day one."  (Emphasis added, link here.)  Note the inappropriate use of the word "rule."  Presidents don't rule - at least not in this country.  "Lead" might have been a better word and it could be that Jarrett simply misspoke.  But keep an eye on this administration.  Protect your freedoms and allow no infringements - not even to face "the daunting challenges" ahead.

Second, watch out for Obama's "national security force."  Georgia congressman Paul Broun is warning that the president elect may be intent on setting up a civilian force "answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military" to

support his policy of "radical socialism or Marxism."  Sounds crazy - and it probably is - but Obama did say in July that "we cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.  We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."  Broun stated, "that's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did."

I don't honestly think that Obama wants his own gestapo and I don't think that his advisors believe or desire his installation as dictator.  But I don't trust Obama.  I wouldn't trust John McCain either - or anybody in the White House.  All presidents must be subject to scrutiny and critical analysis because power definitely has a tendency to corrupt.  

Be vigilant.

Give Obama a chance?

We lost.  

They won.  

Barack Obama has been elected not to head the Democratic Party but to be President of the United States.  Come January 20, he will take office as OUR president.  We have to face that fact.  And, as OUR president, Barack Obama deserves the support of all of us.  He deserves our prayer and our well wishes.  And I truly hope that the policies he pushes through work.  I really hope that my doubts about those programs are wrong - for the good of the country.

I heard a story today about a group of ladies sitting around and cutting down the president-elect.  Their comments were so bitter and mean-spirited that one of their number felt so uncomfortable that she had to leave the conversation.  There is no more room for bitter, mean-spirited attacks on the future president than on the current president.

Conservatives must stand firm in opposition to policy - not to personalities.  Whatever Obama, or any other public official for that matter, says, does or proposes be done should be scrutinized.  If it can be supported, wonderful.  And on many issues, agreement should be possible.  If the position or policy can't be supported, then, oppose it, attack it, cut it down and defeat it, by all means.  But it is the idea, not the person, who deserves the criticism.

I want to think that I will be able to support President Obama often.  (Hope springs eternal.)  But I'm already troubled by what I'm seeing.  The Associated Press reported today that "Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas."

If Obama follows through on these plans, he'll certainly make an immediate impact . . . two immediate mistakes . . . I only wish I was wrong.

Washington Post admits bias . . . after the election

Today, the Washington Post admitted that it was biased in favor of Barack Obama in its election coverage.

There's a shocker for, well, nobody.  Big media has been in the tank for Democrats for as long as I can remember.  This presidential election was no exception.

I understand the situation . . . Republicans and, especially, conservatives are running into a headwind from the media.  Unfortunately, not everyone realizes that.  Some people actually believe that they are getting honest, fair, and balanced reporting from network television or print journalism.

It is sad - but typical - that the Post would hold their admission until after the election.

It is also sad - but typical - that the Post's confession was not accompanied by a pledge to do better next time.

Another show of class from Barack Obama

Check out Ben Smith's blog and the posted video of our new president-elect.

Update . . . Obama apologizes for "careless and off handed remark."

Roy Blunt's Next Move and other thoughts on 2010 and 2012

Today Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt announced that he would step down from his position as Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives.  He's been a power in the House for a long time and he will continue to have influence but no formal leadership role.  

While Blunt claims that he's looking forward to seeing what life is like for just "a member of congress," I'm not sure that the 58-year-old politician will be happy and content on the back bench.

So, what is the logical next move?  

That depends on Kit Bond.  Senator Bond is up for reelection in 2010.  If Bond wants to run again, Blunt won't oppose him.  But if Bond is ready for retirement, Missouri couldn't find a better candidate to replace him than Blunt.

If Bond decides to stay in the Senate, then what?  Blunt has two options . . . Senator Claire McCaskill is up for reelection in 2012 , assuming that she hasn't taken a post in the Obama administration.  And Governor Jay Nixon (putting those three words together still gives me a shiver) will be up too.  

Would Blunt like to return to state politics or stay on the federal level?  Only he can answer that one.  But we can ask what would be best for the Republican Party, Missouri, and America.

I think that Peter Kinder will be in the best position to take on Jay Nixon in 2012.  He's involved in state issues from his post as Lieutenant Governor and popular enough be reelected in the year of Obama.

Blunt would have a great shot at McCaskill.  He's very popular with his southwest Missouri base and well known around the state.  (If Blunt has already moved to the Senate in Bond's seat, the GOP could do worse than Sarah Steelman against Claire McCaskill.)

While I was not a fan of Matt Blunt's administration . . . I think that the job of governor was too big for him and he wasn't ready for it, I have tremendous respect for his father.  The Missouri Republican Party needs Roy Blunt to step up in grade.  Let's hope he gives it a shot.

The time has come to rebuild or abandon the Republican Party

In case you haven't heard, the "maverick" lost his run for the presidency.  John McCain was the latest Republican to take the unconditional support of conservatives within his party for granted - because we had no one else to turn to - and stake his claim as a "moderate."  He tried to win this election by being liberal-light, or just plain liberal on some issues . . . global warming, cap in trade, the bank bailout, immigration, campaign finance "reform," and Joe Lieberman, to cite just a few examples.  And McCain's strategy came fairly close to working but this election was never really in doubt.

Conservatives did not abandon John McCain.  And we didn't abandon George Bush (W. or H.W.).  And we didn't abandon Bob Dole.  We didn't abandon and haven't abandoned the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.  The stakes have simply been too high.  The stakes included war and peace, taxes and the economy, and control of the courts.  Conservatives have been seemingly close to gaining control of the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially reaching the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade for decades.  But the times, they will be changing . . . expect that during Barack Obama's presidency, he will have the opportunity to appoint at least three liberals to the high court.  I no longer believe it possible to see that horrendous ruling reversed during my lifetime - and I'm not that old.

So, if we can't attack abortion through presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, that issue no longer keeps conservatives tied to the GOP.  And, over the course of their time in power, Republicans have increased the size of government and government spending more than FDR could have imagined.  Taxes have been cut, but Republicans didn't have will or guts or power to make them permanent.  And on national security and foreign policy, while Republicans are usually more right than Democrats, there isn't enough difference to keep conservatives unconditionally in the fold.

So it is time for members of the Republican Party to make a decision.  Do Republicans want their party to be a principled, conservative party or a "big tent" political organization that simply wants to dole out something to everybody and try to out-Democrat the Democrats?

If the GOP wants to survive and be relevant again, it must stand for something.  It must stand for the things that it stood for when Ronald Reagan was winning elections in landslides.  It must stand for conservative principles.  It must stand for lower taxes and smaller government.  It must stand for peace through strength.  It must stand for the individual over the collective, freedom, opportunity, and getting government out of the way of the American people.  It must stand for the Second Amendment and capitalism.  It must stand for law and order, legal immigration, and sending aliens who are here illegally home.  It must stand for judicial restraint, states' rights, and the rights of the unborn.

Republicans must stand for these things in the face of the storm coming from Democrats, who now control both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, and coming from Big Media.  The GOP does have one tool left in its once mighty arsenal, enough senators to mount a filibuster.  But that tool must be used sparingly.  The party should instead, most of the time, make its case, attempt to persuade, and let the chips and votes fall where they may.  But the filibuster must be used appropriately on "big ticket" items that have to be stopped.  The "Freedom of Choice Act" comes to mind.

If the Republican Party is willing and able to rebuild itself in this way, then it is destined to rise again.  Socialism doesn't work.  It won't work in America and when it fails this time, Obama and the Democrats will have no one to blame.  The Republicans won't be responsible for liberal failures and won't be complicit in it either.  In 2010 and 2012, a conservative Republican Party could rise to power once again.

But if the GOP is not willing to be principled and conservative now, true conservatives must see the light of day . . . the party will have abandoned us.  And the time will have come for us to abandon the party.

The death of . . .

the coal industry?

business?

capitalism?

freedom?

American exceptionalism?

talk radio?

the GOP?

millions more unborn children?

all of the above?

Just in case you haven't decided to vote for . . .

take a look at this ultrasound image of a live human being inside a mother's womb.  

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Jay Nixon, along with the overwhelming majority of Democrats running for office wherever you might be voting support killing children just like this one.

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Kenny Hulshof, along with the overwhelming majority of Republicans running for office wherever you might be voting support keeping children just like this one alive.

I'll be voting for McCain, Palin, Hulshof, and Republican candidates up and down the ballot tomorrow.

For the sake of millions of Americans yet unborn, I hope that you will join me.

Classless

Take a look at these two video clips and Barack Obama's middle finger:

Barack Obama referring to Hillary Clinton and referring to John McCain.

Are my Democrat friends out there proud to have such a classy guy as their party's nominee for president?

If the expletive fits . . .

Kudos to Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner for telling the truth about Barack Obama and his cowardice.  Boehner was campaigning in his home state of Ohio and talked about the fact that Obama voted "present" 129 times during his eight years in the Illinois legislature.  

By voting "present" Obama could have been choosing not to take a stand - that way he wouldn't upset potential voters with his actual views on the issues.  If that is the case, then Obama is a conniving, Machiavellian, political animal who would do whatever it might take to achieve his political ambitions.  

Or, giving him the benefit of the doubt I suppose, Obama could simply have been undecided or not have known the right thing to do all 129 times he voted "present."  But that would make him indecisive, uninformed, lazy, and/or stupid.

Boehner called Obama out.  He told his Ohio audience the he, like Obama, had voted "present" before but only "two or three times in my entire 25-year political career, where there might have been a conflict of interest."  Boehner contiued, "in Congress, we have a red button, a green button and a yellow button, alright.  Green means 'yes,' red means 'no,' and yellow means you're a chicken shi#.  And the last thing we need in the White House, in the oval office, behind that big desk, is some chicken who wants to push this yellow button."

Boehner is drawing some criticism for the colorful language used, though I suspect that every third-grader in the country has heard much worse.

And, frankly, the point is made . . . vividly.

Hillary's words coming back to haunt Obama

John McCain and Sarah Palin have brought Hillary Clinton's apt warnings about Barack Obama's inexperience back into the campaign.  (Link to story here.)  During her primary battle against Obama - a time before she began carrying Obama's water, Hillary correctly stated that "in the White House, there is no time for speeches and on-the-job training."  

I guess she disagrees with herself now - since she's critical of McCain using her statements in political calls in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

But just when did Hillary decide that it was okay for a novice president to get on-the-job training?

Answer . . . she didn't.  She knows that Obama would be a disaster for America but as a political hack, she's willing to allow it.